E-drug: Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (cont)
---------------------------------------------
I thank Tracy for posting the previous news report. Below is a report from
the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper [copied as fair use] that tells us about
the Australian government's side of the story.
Peter Mansfield
Healthy Skepticism (former Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing)
Australia
"Peter R Mansfield" <peter@healthyskepticism.org>
Patients face drug rations
By Mark Metherell
Sydney Morning Herald 9 March 2002
The Federal Government is considering a crackdown on prescription drugs
worth up to $1 billion in this year's Budget, and the Prime Minister
yesterday gave his strongest warning yet on the surging cost of subsidised
drugs.
John Howard said the Government had to ensure "proper constraints and proper
disciplines because the cost of prescribing these drugs on the so-called
free list can grow exponentially if we're not careful".
The Finance Department is understood to be pressing the Health Department to
introduce measures over four years to slash yearly spending on the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) by $1 billion a year by 2006.
This would amount to an effective freeze on PBS spending, which last year
grew by 20 per cent to more than $4 billion. The scheme is under continual
strain because of the growth in new drugs costing thousands of dollars a
year per patient.
Among measures likely to be considered - which will provoke fresh protests
from patient groups and doctors - are:
1 Tighter restrictions on approval of expensive new drugs for subsidies,
other than those with unique life-saving properties.
2 Dropping subsidies for older, superseded drugs.
3 More screening of the way in which doctors prescribe drugs and tougher
controls on when they can write scripts for some expensive drugs.
Mr Howard acknowledged that the Government was looking at budgetary
"restraints" when he was asked about the $1.1 billion cost of Australia's
part in the war against terrorism.
He played down the suggestion that cuts were needed to prescription drugs,
saying it was rather "making sure that we don't incur any additional
expenditures that aren't absolutely essential".
Mr Howard said the Government "won't be punishing anybody" on the issue of
pharmaceutical benefits.
"But obviously, with something as generous as the PBS scheme, we have to
make sure that there are proper constraints and proper disciplines because
the cost of prescribing these drugs on the so-called free list can grow
exponentially if we're not careful," he told Melbourne radio.
"It's quite reasonable to put some kind of disciplines on their use. We
don't want a situation where a drug is prescribed as something of first
resort."
Mr Howard's comments came a day after a forum called by patient groups urged
a wide-ranging review of drug subsidies and expressed concern about the
difficulties in securing subsidies for effective new drugs.
A report prepared for the forum by Canberra University said there was a
widespread view that Australia had been "very successful" in securing low
prices for its prescribed drugs.
The Opposition's health spokesman, Stephen Smith, said that if the
Government had not "gambled away" $4 billion to $5 billion on foreign
exchange trading it would not have to be looking now "at crude cost cutting
measures for the PBS".
The Australian Medical Association said the increase in pharmaceutical costs
was a worldwide trend and would continue. "But Australia still rates well
against countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan,"
the national president, Dr Kerryn Phelps, said.
The Government is likely to face heavy pressure from the pharmaceutical
industry over any cuts.
--
To send a message to E-Drug, write to: e-drug@usa.healthnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@usa.healthnet.org
in the body of the message type: subscribe e-drug OR unsubscribe e-drug
To contact a person, send a message to: e-drug-help@usa.healthnet.org
Information and archives: http://www.healthnet.org/programs/edrug.html